Plea Bargaining - The New Hampshire 'Ban'

• NCJ Number: 92038
• Journal: New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1983) Pages: 387-406
• Author(s): A R P Fixsen
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 20 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

As a pilot program, New Hampshire banned the practice of sentence bargaining in the superior courts of Merrimack County, while charge bargaining was retained; however, there is no evidence that the quality of justice has improved.

Abstract

Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court has prohibited the practice of plea bargaining per se in Merrimack County as a pilot experiment, the prohibition has only affected sentence bargaining in practice. All those interviewed stated that charge bargaining was not, and could not, be banned by the justices. The decision of what to charge, or if to charge at all, continues to be a necessary expression of prosecutorial discretion. In examining the results of the experiment, this study analyzed impact on the court docket, the effect on judicial sentencing, sentence length, costs, and impact on the victim. The elimination of sentencing bargaining has substantially curtailed the number of negotiated pleas in the county, and sentence length is no longer a debated topic between the prosecutor and the defense attorney, although bargaining continues in determining the charge to be brought. The quality of the indictments has not improved overall, as more cases are now being 'nol prossed.' The costs of maintaining the program are high, particularly in the area of witness fees. Docket backlog, although not presently a problem, may develop due to an increased number of trials without an increase in court facilities. Since much of the public criticism of plea bargaining stems from a misunderstanding of what plea bargaining entails, the public should be informed about the plea bargaining system, and plea bargaining should be reformed and publicly monitored so that the secrecy that breeds misunderstanding may be eliminated. The suppression of plea bargaining can only force it further underground. The appendix provides case processing data, and 126 footnotes are provided.